On Riots And Unrest

I wasn't going to write about this subject, but I have to share my thoughts. 

As any American should be, I am appalled and disgusted by what happened to George Floyd, a man who lost his life due to police brutality.  No matter what race you are, nobody deserves to be treated like that; no one needs to have their life snuffed out in such a way.  This is an event that didn't have to happen. 

Having said that, it sickens me to watch what's happening on the streets of America.  Yes, what happened to Mr. Floyd is unquestionably wrong; but "two wrongs don't make a right".  These riots are violence for the sake of violence, and destruction for the sake of destruction.  We know, or should know, better. 

The problems confronting us cannot be solved by threatening the lives and businesses of others; they can only be made into bigger problems.  And to paraphrase Sean Connery in "The Rock", I don't quite see how you honor the dead by killing more (Note 1) .  Rioters, it's time for you to GO HOME. 

(RADIO ANNOUNCER: Now we come to the portion of the piece where Matty B gets political.  This is a trigger warning! If you are easily offended or angered, take cover in your "safe space" now!)

Well done, Mr. Radio Announcer, thank you. 

Ahem. 

Sickened as I am by what's going on, I can't help thinking about what's led up to this chaos and destruction.  You see, it is what the radical left has wanted all along.  This is no longer about George Floyd; it's about tearing down a system with which the left disagrees, and doing so by force. 

For those of you shaking your heads right now, let's review the last year or so, shall we?

First, the left and their cohorts in the media told us that Russian influence decided the 2016 election.  For month upon month, all we heard from them was "Russia this, Russia that".  Radicals on the Democratic side advanced a campaign of intimidation; basically, agree with them or you will be silenced, "by any means necessary". 

Then, when some started to question their motivations, the left tried a new tactic; push to impeach a lawfully elected president.  This resulted in an impeachment trial before the United States Senate, even when witness after witness said they knew of no evidence suggesting any wrongdoing by President Trump.  Thankfully, the Senate did the right thing, and dismissed the BS charges.  Isn't that when Democrats first warned of "blood in the streets" if they didn't get their way? (Yes, it was)

That brings us into March of this year.  With the failure of the impeachment trial to produce their desired result, the left had to come up with something new.  Although I'm not saying that they directly caused this to happen, what rears its ugly head, so to speak? We must be talking about COVID-19! In the ensuing months, we have seen the onset of panic, authoritarianism, and disruption of almost every facet of American life.  "Never let a crisis go to waste", right, Rahm Emanuel? (Note 2)

Now, we reach the present day.  The crisis over the coronavirus has reached its peak.  America is beginning the process of re-opening and recovering.  So...."fourth verse, same as the first".  What's the plan this time, do you ask? Violence, and actual "blood in the streets".  

I won't mince words here.  These protests may have started out peacefully, but they are no longer peaceful.  The riots that we see aren't even about George Floyd anymore.  They are about the radical socialist left, and their fervent desire to take down the capitalist system (and its government) by use of terror and violence.  Race has nothing to do with it, economic condition has nothing to do with it, JUSTICE has nothing to do with it. 

The only thing that matters (to them) is that the left take advantage of their opportunity to finally reach their goal, which is to remake America in their twisted, Socialist image. 

It doesn't have to be this way.  Whether Democrat or Republican, Socialist or Conservative...if you want change, seek it at the ballot box, and through serving your community. 

As the Mayor of Atlanta exclaimed, "we are better than this". 


Note 1: Quote paraphrased from Sean Connery in "The Rock", Hollywood Pictures, 1996.  Director: Michael Bay. 

Note 2: Rahm Emanuel is a former Chief of Staff for Barack Obama.  He later served as a mayor of Chicago. 

Political Nicknames

Inspired by President Donald Trump, here's a list of my current nicknames for certain politicians. 

In no particular order.  

• US Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-CT: "Dastardly Dick" (or simply, "Dick")

• Former Governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy, D-Stamford: "Moron Malloy"

• Congressman Adam Schiff, D-CA: "Adam McCarthy" (in the vein of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who created/exploited the 1950s "Red Scare").  

• See Also: ("insert word starting with 'S', and rhyming with 'kit' here) Stain"

• US Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY: "Upchuck"

• Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA: "Nutty Nancy"

• Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, D-CT: "The Scarecrow" (or "The Wicked Witch of the East", shared with Hillary Clinton)

• CNN Commentator Chris Cuomo: "Fredo" (as usual)

• Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo: "Michael" (if Chris is "Fredo (Corleone)", then Andrew must be "Michael", right?)

• Former US Secretary of State John Kerry, D-MA: "Kollaborator Kerry" (for his slandering of fellow American soldiers during Vietnam War "peace talks".  These "talks" were sponsored by North Vietnam, our main enemy during that conflict)

• Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-CA: "Mad Maxine" (as usual)

• Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, D-Somewhere: "Subcomandante Denise" (for her rubber stamping of anything that the governor does/says)

• Mayor Bill DeBlasio, D-New York: "DeBLAHsio"

• Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY: "Yo Bartender!"

And last, but certainly least:

• Governor of Connecticut Ned Lamont, D-Greenwich: "King Ned".  

Note that this list may expand as time goes by, LOL.  

Forwarded From My Facebook Page: "If It Please The Crown..."

Author's Note: Apparently, Facebook has decided not to "play nice" with me (aka this is being censored). 

....can we actually re-open tomorrow, as originally scheduled?

Here’s some background in case you missed the latest news.

On Monday, Governor Lamont issued “Executive Order No. 7PP”, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. This order allows certain businesses to re-open, but to others, says “not so fast, my friend” (Lee Corso).

As of tomorrow, May 20, these types of businesses have the green light to continue operations. (1)

• Outdoor dining establishments (you can’t order alcohol without also ordering food, though)
• Most offices
• Retail centers and malls
• Museums
• Outdoor Recreation establishments

Having gone through the list of permitted businesses, here are the business/gathering types that still have a red light; they CANNOT open until at least June 20.

• Any gathering of more than five people
• OTB (off-track betting) facilities, Indoor Gyms/Fitness Centers, Movie Theatres
• Day Campsites
• All resident camps
• Summer schools (until at least July 6)

At this rate, Connecticut will be the final state to re-open. Keep in mind that this is not the first, not the second, but the THIRD TIME that “King Ned” has “changed his mind” on lifting “emergency restrictions” (the process of re-opening was originally scheduled to begin in mid-April) (Note 1). There’s no guarantee that the latter businesses will be allowed to re-open come June, nor anything stopping the governor from extending this order to July. And as previously explained, “we the people” have little to no legal recourse.

I haven’t totally said this before, but now’s the time to say it. Governor Lamont....the people of Connecticut are not your subjects, nor are we your slaves. We are free men and women; people that are financially and emotionally hurt every day that your draconian restrictions remain. Your constraint of our rights has to end, and it has to end NOW.

In the event that this situation continues, I call upon my fellow “Nutmeggers” to engage in acts of civil disobedience. The hell with being limited to groups of five friends; go out with ten of them. Movie theatre owners, forget not being allowed to open. Show five different films a day for an entire week, if that’s what it takes. And if you’re a “concerned citizen” like me, show up at the State Capitol Building with signs, bullhorns, and (possibly) firearms.

Now more than ever, we need to use our voices. To quote the movie “Network”, it’s time that our elected “leaders” (such as “King Ned”) found out; we’re “mad as hell, and (we’re) not going to take it anymore”!

Note 1: Earlier this month, Governor Lamont announced a date of June for most re-openings. This date was subsequently rolled back to May 20. If one doesn’t count this change, it’s only the second time that the governor has “changed his mind”.

Sources:

1. Lamont, Ned, and Denise Merrill. "Executive Order No. 7PP". Portal.Ct.Gov, 2020, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-7PP.pdf?la=en. Accessed 19 May 2020.

About This Strike Thing....

For those who haven't already heard the news, the spring training states of Arizona and Florida have given the green light to the resumption of sports.  To this, a collective cheer has arisen from the masses; so "play ball", right? It's not that simple, I'm afraid, as Major League Baseball players are saying "not so fast".  

Let me recap what's happened in the past few months.  After a long winter, spring training started on its usual schedule.  Then, disaster struck, as the COVID-19 pandemic left its mark on athletes and fans alike.  This has had an enormous detrimental effect on the economic structure of the league.  

Taking the current economic situation into account, MLB owners have come up with a detailed plan for the resumption of play.  As is usually the case, the sticking point is over one not-so-simple area of concern; money.  

You see, the deal that would get us back to baseball includes what is known as a "revenue split".  Put in basic terms, half of the money made this season would go to the players, and the other half to team ownerships.  The MLBPA ("Major League Baseball Players Association", the players' labor union) has balked at this proposal, calling it a "non-starter".  (1)  This raises a very ugly prospect, which is the possibility of a player strike.  

For the past twenty-six years or so, there has bee a period of relative labor peace between MLB owners and players.  (2)  This is largely because of the events of 1994, the last time that the players held a major strike.  As it is now, the question then was over money; specifically, how much the players should be paid, and if there should be a salary cap.  

Let's quickly review what happened as a result of that season's strike.  

• In a shocking development, Acting Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig canceled the post-season, including the World Series.  

• Genuine distrust developed between the players' union and team ownerships.  

• The Montreal Expos, who had MLB's best record that season, failed to bring a championship to Montreal.  

• Also in Montreal, the Expos slid into futility, making their relocation (to Washington) inevitable.  

• "Replacement players" took the field for the first week or so of the 1995 season.  

• MLB's fan base, angered by what they saw as greed on both sides, stayed away from stadiums for the first few months of 1995.  

That's not to say everything that resulted from this strike was bad.  

The Colorado Rockies and Miami Marlins were approved as expansion teams, MLB moved to its current divisional format, and interleague play was instituted (whether you think that's a good thing or not).  However, the detrimental effects of the 1994 strike vastly outweighed the good results; some of those consequences are still felt today.  It is my belief that the only thing that saved baseball as we know it was the 1996 home run race (where Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chased down the single-season record, then held by Roger Maris).  

Now, a final point.  If I might give a few words of advice to today's MLBPA, they would be in the words of "Worf" from "Star Trek: The Next Generation"; "consider what you do here".  

Nobody wants a strike to happen, as it will not only hurt players and owners, but the game at large.  Any strike will likely be a prolonged one, and legitimately put the future of the league in jeopardy.  With everything else going on around baseball right now, are you willing to risk the end of your careers, just for the sake of getting paid a little more? And are you willing to bet that things will improve because of this strike? 

Personally, that's not a bet that I'm inclined to take.  

A Matter of Contempt?

If things weren't serious enough before, they are now, as a legal challenge has been brought to Governor Ned Lamont (D-CT)'s authority. 

Mr. Lindy Urso, a Greenwich-based attorney, has filed suit against the governor.  (1)  In the lawsuit, the attorney alleges that (regarding executive orders of the governor) several of his civil rights have been violated, including rights to free assembly and free speech.  To this, Urso is asking a federal court to declare the relevant orders unconstitutional, and thereby overturn them.  

I won't go into the merits of the case here; that is for other legal scholars to debate.  Instead, I will focus on the response (or lack thereof, as you will see) of Governor Lamont.  

A search of legal documents regarding this case ("Urso v. Lamont", as presented to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) (2) has led me to a web resource known as "PacerMonitor" (a system that keeps track of events associated with legal actions).  According to the site, the most recent action in this lawsuit was the issuing (on 4/20) of a summons to the governor.  This summons explains that the governor must answer the charges against him.

Further examining the matter, I have found this information from the "WiseGeek" web site:

"A civil summons is an order of the court...the summons will indicate how long the recipient has to respond.  Failure to respond within the given time period may cause a default judgment to be entered against the recipient".  (3)

Governor Lamont has not yet replied to the summons issued to him, nor made any peep about the case in the press.  I myself have written him, asking why he has not answered the legal challenge; it appears my question has been ignored.  (note 1)

Knowing this, what might happen in the case of Urso v Lamont? Will the governor respond, or will he effectively ignore the Court's order? It is my feeling that the latter will occur.  If so, what if any actions can be taken against the defense? 

As previously explained, the Court could issue what is called a "summary judgment" against the governor.  This would result in the case being decided for the plaintiff, and the related executive orders overturned.  (4)  It is also possible that Lamont could be found in "contempt of court", meaning that he has disobeyed or disrespected a lawful order of the Court.  The usual penalty for being "in contempt" is a period of incarceration, and/or a significant fine.  (5) 

So....it appears that things are getting very interesting in the "Constitution State".  I'll keep you informed as to what happens in this case.  

Note 1: As of May 2, we will be in the twelfth day of the twenty-one days that the Court has allotted for response.  (2)